Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Other than Hillary, who do you think should be locked up for violating email protocol? [View all]leveymg
(36,418 posts)145. The Deutch case is direct precedent. The CIA IG recommended prosecution and specified 18 USC 793(f)
as a chargeable offense for Deutch.
The Intelligence Community IG will be issuing a report on HRCs case before the FBI, and it appears that it too will recommend prosecution.
https://oig.state.gov/system/files/statement_of_the_icig_and_oig_regarding_review_of_clintons_emails_july_24_2015.pdf.
July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails
Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
July 24, 2015
Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the
Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails
Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a
congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG
support to the State Department IG (attached).
The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of
40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which
have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings
and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State
Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated
and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This
classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
A lot of people seem to have missed that one, and it will be devastating to several key HRC Campaign lies.
Here's what the 1997 Deutch CIA IG Report found: https://fas.org/irp/cia/product/ig_deutch.html
WHAT LAWS, REGULATIONS, AGREEMENTS, AND POLICIES HAVE POTENTIAL APPLICATION?
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:
Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.
114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:
All [Sensitive Compartmented Information] must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.
115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:
Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.
116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:
Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.
117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:
Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.
109. (U) Title 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 793, "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information" specifies in paragraph (f):
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing,... or information, relating to national defense ... through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
110. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 798, "Disclosure of classified information" specifies in part:
Whoever, knowingly and willfully ... uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States ... any classified information ... obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
111. (U) Title 18 U.S.C. § 1924, "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material" specifies:
Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
112. (U) The National Security Act of 1947, CIA Act of 1949, and Executive Order (E.O.) 12333 establish the legal duty and responsibility of the DCI, as head of the United States intelligence community and primary advisor to the President and the National Security Council on national foreign intelligence, to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
113. (U) Director of Central Intelligence Directive (DCID) 1/ 16, effective July 19, 1988, "Security Policy for Uniform Protection of Intelligence Processed in Automated Information Systems and Networks," reiterates the statutory authority and responsibilities assigned to the DCI for the protection of intelligence sources and methods in Section 102 of the National Security Act of 1947, E.O.s 12333 and 12356, and National Security Decision Directive 145 and cites these authorities as the basis for the security of classified intelligence, communicated or stored in automated information systems and networks.
114. (U) DCID 1/21, effective July 29, 1994, "Physical Security Standards for Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs) specifies in paragraph 2:
All [Sensitive Compartmented Information] must be stored within accredited SCIFs. Accreditaticn is the formal affirmation that the proposed facility meets physical security standards imposed by the DCI in the physical security standards manual that supplements this directive.
115. (U/ /FOUO) Headquarters Regulation (HR) 10-23, Storage of Classified Information or Materials. Section C (1)specifies:
Individual employees are responsible for securing classified information or material in their possession in designated equipment and areas when not being maintained under immediate personal control in approved work areas.
116. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-24, "Accountability and Handling of Collateral Classified Material," prescribes the policies, procedures, and responsibilities associated with the accountability and handling of collateral classified material. The section concerning individual employee responsibilities states:
Agency personnel are responsible for ensuring that all classified material is handled in a secure manner and that unauthorized persons are not afforded access to such material.
117. (U/ /FOUO) HR 10-25, "Accountability and Handling of Classified Material Requiring Special Control," sets forth policy, responsibilities, and procedures that govern the transmission, control, and storage of Restricted Data, treaty organization information, cryptographic materials, and Sensitive Compartmented Information. The section states:
Individuals authorized access to special control materials are responsible for observing the security requirements that govern the transmission, control, and storage of said materials. Further, they are responsible for ensuring that only persons having appropriate clearances or access approvals are permitted access to such materials or to the equipment and facilities in which they are stored.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
218 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Other than Hillary, who do you think should be locked up for violating email protocol? [View all]
qdouble
Jun 2016
OP
Can you find any other case where it was recommended that an official go to prison for using a
qdouble
Jun 2016
#2
Your link doesn't show that she actually broke the law, but most important, it doesn't state
qdouble
Jun 2016
#4
did Powell use a private server, or just a private email? There is a BIG difference. I
Exilednight
Jun 2016
#19
Are all email providers legally required not to delete your emails? And how does
qdouble
Jun 2016
#23
your implying that a server is bad only because the user can delete emails
puffy socks
Jun 2016
#187
So? there was a protocal to print emails which they did. Sent emails are saved on the recipient
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
#98
we don't really know if all emails were printed, we can only take Hillary's
Exilednight
Jun 2016
#102
Her attorney and staff didn't print them until long after she left the State Dept. and after they
2cannan
Jun 2016
#144
I'm a programmer... Gmail doesn't use any top-secret advanced algorithms to authenticate
qdouble
Jun 2016
#48
You understand there's a big difference in the degree of difficulty in what it takes
qdouble
Jun 2016
#111
despite all the security, there are still breeches. It's ignorant to believe gmail is secure.
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
#99
Millions of commercial email accounts get hacked every year yet these guys are acting like not using
qdouble
Jun 2016
#107
agreed. It's a witch hunt. I thought we were better on the left, but these past 3 months have shown
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
#147
Hillary is different because she's a Clinton. That means everything she does is attacked.
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
#79
Assuming that the people she is communicating aren't also all using private email servers,
qdouble
Jun 2016
#112
They should be able to dig up a lot of information through the internet service provider
qdouble
Jun 2016
#121
Both CIA Director Petraeus and Deutch were cited for felony violations of Espionage Act Sec 793.
leveymg
Jun 2016
#127
Well neither case is an exact match to the email situation.... I suppose Deutch would be close as
qdouble
Jun 2016
#130
The Deutch case is direct precedent. The CIA IG recommended prosecution and specified 18 USC 793(f)
leveymg
Jun 2016
#145
In terms of secure communication, there is nothing inherently more insecure about using a private
qdouble
Jun 2016
#34
Apparently that's not accurate. Her signed oaths or agreements, for one, are suspect.
Voice for Peace
Jun 2016
#217
Email communication is a two way street. Investigators should be able to draw evidence from those
qdouble
Jun 2016
#116
I know it won't matter to you but...at least if she had used a Google, Yahoo or MS email account
2cannan
Jun 2016
#61
A distinction without a difference since there is no evidence her server was hacked.
randome
Jun 2016
#73
Do you believe in management or laissez-faire incompetence? Check out this video.
highprincipleswork
Jun 2016
#133
Yes, because it would make sense for Hillary to specify that her server not be password protected
qdouble
Jun 2016
#168
The responsibility for setting up a server was hers. Her decision and no-one else's.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#171
this isn't the point -- it's that her server was inaccessible to anyone but her people, many of whom
Voice for Peace
Jun 2016
#216
It's the same because if they raid your office, I'd assume you wouldn't have the chance to wipe all
qdouble
Jun 2016
#55
You asked me to explain why her assistants tried to hide it.... how is that not speculative?
qdouble
Jun 2016
#115
I'm not deflecting, I'm pointing out that you are speculating about their motives and then
qdouble
Jun 2016
#141
You're launching an ad hominem attack on me without displaying that you have any knowledge that I'm
qdouble
Jun 2016
#59
It just is not a big enough deal to inherently create someone as a liar when I have no proof.
seabeyond
Jun 2016
#78
I know multiple languages, but I'm primarily a web programmer, I've been focusing mostly on
qdouble
Jun 2016
#93
I've run my own private servers, studied some white hat hacking, took IT courses,
qdouble
Jun 2016
#170
Why do you keep repeating your very carefully worded line about 'inherently secure'?
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#177
I'm saying that saying she used a PRIVATE SERVER is a bad argument because it implies that
qdouble
Jun 2016
#179
1. If someone once to vote for president based on their use of email address, then that's on them
qdouble
Jun 2016
#197
very little. Like when bush went after the Dixie Chicks the issue was the freedom of
MariaThinks
Jun 2016
#82
So you're saying the rules don't specifically cover that situation. That's fine.
randome
Jun 2016
#12
Err what? You do know we're talking about a private server, not just email right?
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#165
her sentencing would be for a Judge to decide after due process of the law. I just want to see it
Hiraeth
Jun 2016
#22
You want to see her sentencing play out? For which crime in particular and what would be a fair
qdouble
Jun 2016
#24
I'm not stupid or a weasel, but insulting the opposition is pretty standard fair for Bernouts.
qdouble
Jun 2016
#199
If you want to be an asshole, it's fine by me...but don't accuse me of not knowing your intentions
qdouble
Jun 2016
#202
All you've done is sling pejoratives while not actually showing that I lied about anything.
qdouble
Jun 2016
#208
I didn't lie. If you took what she said a different way than I took it, that's not tantamount to
qdouble
Jun 2016
#210
Your post doesn't address the OP at all. You guys are suggesting that she should go to prison, but
qdouble
Jun 2016
#28
Bernie's guys that jumped into the DNC records database knowing they should not be there.
tonyt53
Jun 2016
#29
Yes, computers protected by the security expertise of the NSA are indeed inherently more secure.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#167
This is an argument from authority from a person who doesn't know how code works.
qdouble
Jun 2016
#176
I didn't say 'government computers' I said NSA protected which the SOS's communications warrant.
Kentonio
Jun 2016
#178
I'm not saying that I'm a leading authority, I'm backing up my argument with facts and logic.
qdouble
Jun 2016
#180
I see you chose to not address the OP at all... I asked specifically for what precedent for a person
qdouble
Jun 2016
#44
A and b don't point to any inherent weakness, only that it was against protocol, we've already
qdouble
Jun 2016
#72
Commercial servers have redundancies and have to be up to the requirements of protecting millions
qdouble
Jun 2016
#104
No one ever gives a coherent answer as to why "a PRIVATE SERVER" is so awful.
Lord Magus
Jun 2016
#60
Perhaps because no one else has access to it besides the people she wanted to have access?
2cannan
Jun 2016
#68
another Trump talking point repeated by so called Dems. Yup, another Trump stumper.
Sheepshank
Jun 2016
#50
Really, how many who are in prison who should be released if Hillary isn't indicted?
pdsimdars
Jun 2016
#53
I guess that means you believe Hillary more than the IG of the State Department.
pdsimdars
Jun 2016
#124
The thread isn't about whether or not Hillary clinton violated protocol....it is what is the
qdouble
Jun 2016
#148
It's a right wing scandal. I see tons of republicans posting the exact same stuff and using the
qdouble
Jun 2016
#76
The FBI hasn't arrested her. No one knows what the results will be, but right-wingers
qdouble
Jun 2016
#161
The risk of her server being hacked isn't dramatically higher than the risk of someone's
qdouble
Jun 2016
#123
As I recall, plenty of us here advocated that Republicans be jailed for even lesser email offenses
Live and Learn
Jun 2016
#94
Bill Clinton they work as a team. She and he put our Country in jeopardy and used
bkkyosemite
Jun 2016
#108
I don't know of a precedent of another SOS using a private server. I'll go with the FBI decision.
EndElectoral
Jun 2016
#134
Cheryl Mills has a history of covering Clinton Email Scandals... so that would be nice
trudyco
Jun 2016
#153
This thread is specifically in response to people who make it seem like Hillary should be in prison.
qdouble
Jun 2016
#156
I don't believe she's going to be indicted nor do I think she's going to go to prison
qdouble
Jun 2016
#157
Hillary will not be locked up for the emails, it is a good possibility Bernie and Jane Sanders
Thinkingabout
Jun 2016
#158
Unless you are the FBI Agent in charge or the Federal Prosecutor or the Federal Judge who's
99Forever
Jun 2016
#191